Actor Andrew Garfield repeats insult to Spider-Man, and Mary Jane Watson

The Daily Wire says actor Andrew Garfield, who'd played Spidey in the past decade, has repeated a woke pitch for how to tell the story:

Former “Spider-Man” star Andrew Garfield still thinks the character should be gay.

The 43-year-old actor said his mind hasn’t changed since the infamous interview in 2013 when he pitched that idea for the first time.

Garfield reflected on his initial comments during a press tour for “The Uprising,” as Entertainment Weekly reported earlier this week.

“It was an exercise in rebellion that I felt passionate about,” Garfield told the outlet of his previous comments. “I just still believe that anyone can be in that suit. That’s the point of why it’s such a kind of universally beloved character, one of the greatly beloved characters in the history of fiction is because you don’t see skin color, you don’t see gender, you don’t see sexuality. Anyone can project themselves into that suit.”

This is stupid. Even Black Panther's original costume was similar, and there are a number of superhero costume designs from past decades where you don't see what they look like at all, although, if the artists wanted to, they could draw breasts on a female protagonist to differentiate whether men or women are wearing the costume. But I guess in an era where women's sexuality is desecrated, Garfield must think insulting the fairer sex is easy.

“I like the idea of a place where everyone is being honored and everyone is being included, and it was just a kind of act of saying, ‘Well, why not?’ And you’ll be telling on yourself if you have a strong opinion either way,” the actor went on.

This was a reflection on his suggestion in 2013 that Spider-Man could be gay. Garfield even had a love interest picked out for the character.

“I was kind of joking, but kind of not joking about MJ. … I was like, ‘What if MJ is a dude?’” the actor said at the time, referencing Spider Man’s love interest, Mary Jane. “Why can’t we discover that Peter is exploring his sexuality? It’s hardly even groundbreaking! … So why can’t he be gay? Why can’t he be into boys?”

I think this sums up 2 terrible things. He's insulted MJ's womanhood, and he also implies Spidey should be into underaged youngsters?!? Where has Hollywood's moral compass gone these days?

One of the commenters on the article said:

Andrew Garfield is the Spider-man superhero that never should have been and we never needed.

I will never watch his entries in the franchise ever again. He's just another two-bit actor who clearly lacks the confidence to sell his movies by merit, and clarifies this bankruptcy by following up on Joe Quesada's desecration of Stan Lee's creations. Assuming Garfield reads the modern comics, it wouldn't be hard to guess where he stands on the destruction of the Spider-marriage. What occurs in the comics has extended in a way to the movies.

Lanterns TV series is little more than a "white privilege" lecture

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart says the James Gunn-produced TV show supposedly based on Green Lantern has unsurprisingly turned out to be quite an outmoded political lecture:

Director James Gunn’s executive produced DC comics streaming series Lanterns has become one long lecture on “white privilege” and racism in America and fans are lashing out.

The HBO series is based on DC’s Green Lantern universe of characters, which features the Green Lantern Corps, a multi-species policing organization that patrols the universe to keep the peace. The first human Corps member was Hal Jordan, a character introduced in 1959, who was given the Lantern Corp’s power ring, which allows him to manifest a green energy that can be used in many ways as a weapon to fight enemies. The Corps was created as an extension of the original Green Lantern stories introduced in 1940 with character Alan Scott wielding the power ring.

Lanterns, though, seems to be following the codes of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and black victimology instead of the heroic Green Lantern Corps oath about fighting evil. And after only three episodes, fans are pushing back on the leftist political agenda interwoven throughout the third episode.

Why isn't it surprising that a character like Hal could eventually be subject to some of the worst PC possible, if he hadn't been before? But here we are, and the destruction of GL nobody's willing to admit occurred as far back as mid-1988 continues, this time in live action. The first 3 episodes feature the following:

Lindelof is apparently already indulging his penchant toward “revisionism” with this Green Lantern series, too. In the first episode of the new Lanterns series, we meet the once heroic Hal Jordan (Kyle Chandler), who has become a cynical, disheveled, drunk who no one likes and who is murdered at the end of the episode. Then in episode two we get a woman telling Jordan’s protege, black American John Stewart (Aaron Pierre), all about white privilege.

In the “white privilege” scene, viewers are told that white men have the “luxury” of being able to be “eccentric,” and “white men with money can do whatever the fuck they want.”

This may be cable TV, but wow, they went that far to fill it with expletives to boot? Ugh. I remember there was once a time when profanity on TV was kept mild, and even most cable programs I watched weren't that heavy-handed. What this additionally makes clear is that Gunn, as the overseer of the production, is quite fine with forcing vicious leftism down everyone's throats. If his Superman movie hadn't had subtle metaphors, this show would've. I don't see any need to tune for something that doesn't even put the word "green" alongside the Lanterns. It's also telling their contempt for Hal isn't all that different from what the writers of the Zero Hour crossover in 1994 expressed. If they don't respect Hal Jordan, there's no point in viewing any further.

Since we're on the subject, several weeks earlier, Tom King, who was one of the production staff, was interviewed by Inverse, and what he tells is quite laughable as it's predictable:

Talk to me about how the story of Lanterns became what we see in the show.

It started with me. I sort of had it first. And then we brought Damon [Lindelof] and Chris [Mundy] on. We threw out everything I had and started over — I mean, except for the theme. The three of us built a show. And then when we hit the ground with the three other writers, we were like, “Here’s what we have.” And they’re like, “Throw that all out, because we have ideas.” It was built organically that way, by listening to each other and to each person’s personal experience. We had these big ideas, and Vanessa [Baden Kelly] built that from her experience and made it sing. She gets all the flowers for that.

Some organism, I'll say. Even Denny O'Neil's run on GL was never as forced as appears to be the case here, and the difference is that back then, stories like O'Neil's reflected the times legitimately enough. Also, what's the point of their listening to each other if they're all left-wing? The "biggest" idea would have to be sending Hal once again to the afterlife, this time in live action.

Did you always know it’d be Hal training John to be his successor?

The central mystery we started with is, “Why does Guy Gardner have the ring? There’s these two other Lanterns. Why is he the one you only see in the Superman movie? How do we kind of explain that, where that starts, and where Hal is in the picture?” It was always, from the beginning, John Stewart and Hal Jordan, because those are the quintessential Green Lanterns. Due to two people, I think: Gil Kane, who created our ’60s Hal Jordan. That “Paul Newman” Hal Jordan — which is so embodied by Kyle — that’s very much [from] Gil Kane and John Broome, who invented him as kind of this ideal, ’60s masculine guy living on the edge.

And for John, Neal Adams. Neal was this total outsider; he was, like, a rebel. He’s like, “I’m not going anywhere where I’m not changing the game for the better.” He took hits for that in the comic industry. But he’s the one who got us paid and got us the first whiff of health insurance and got the old guard their art back… And that’s all in John Stewart. And then Dwayne McDuffie was the guy. Dwayne McDuffie had such control over his art. He’s the one who brought that Marine to [John] and brought that creativity to him — and brought that to children. A whole generation’s like, “Who’s Hal Jordan? John Stewart’s my Green Lantern.”

When exactly did McDuffie have anything to do with GL? I don't know of any involvement he could've had. I thought it was the overrated Geoff Johns who retconned John into a Marine, and when somebody as awful as Johns is the one doing the scripting, it's only bad news. But far more telling has to be the way King puts down Hal for the sake of John. Sounds like he doesn't want anybody reading the Silver Age archives and judging for themselves at all. One more reason not to be taken in by King's propaganda, which even goes so far as to hint he dislikes what Broome and Kane created Hal Jordan as.

Lanterns does take some big swings with that premise right out the gate. This series takes place after Sinestro breaks bad and is defeated by the Green Lanterns, which is a huge comic story that hasn’t really been adapted on-screen. Did that ever feel like a risk?

I was at the first architecture meeting [for the DCU], when we’re just sort of all these writers sitting around the room. James Gunn’s first — and it was so instinctual to him that he didn’t realize what a revolution it was… But he started that first meeting by pitching us what his universe is going to be. As he’s pitching us Superman, the thing that he was saying is, “This is not an origin story. We’re not starting with Day 1. This universe has started. We’re on Day 20 of this universe. We’re on Day 80. We’re on Year 80.” He’s like, “People are tired of origin stories. People are tired of seeing that stuff over and over again. Let’s give them quality over explaining. They don’t need to be lectured at. They need to be entertained.”

Starting in the middle was always James’ way of saying, “Get to the meat.” You’re in a universe that lives. It’s like picking up a random comic book. And the Sinestro stuff, I love that because what separates DC from Marvel a little bit — at least in the comics I’ve been doing so much — is the idea of legacy, the idea that what you do affects the next generation. Who your father is affects who you are as a son, affects who you are as a father. It’s the idea that Sinestro was Hal’s coach, and Hal is John’s coach. Both of them have passed on the good and the bad to each other. Watching that flow the way we watch both our trauma and our greatness flow from our grandparents down to us was a wonderful part of that show.

Oh, so they followed up on the shoddy premise that began in the 2 worthless Emerald Dawn miniseries that were both quite jumbled in their consistency with one another? Let's also recall the disgraced Gerard Jones was one of the writers of those awful stories, which forcibly reduced Hal to a drunkard who spends a few months in prison for causing an accident. Indeed, what was so special about those miniseries that DC had to reprint them in trades for some time? After Jones was found out, they've gone out of print, and deservedly so. And what's told about Gunn's statements are just so hilarious, since despite what's claimed, he did lecture, and Lanterns is now proof of that too.

You also get some of that in the way this tweaks John’s origins, examining this idea of legacy in his relationship to his parents, and the privilege of being considered for a ring.

John’s origin has been fudgeable a little bit. Different people have done different things with it. It’s not like Batman’s “My parents were killed.” It has changed. We tweaked his origin story to give him that thing that Batman has, that thing that Spider-Man has: a hook. They can be like, “Oh, I understand this character because he deserves that, because a hook makes a great superhero.” And John’s one of the greatest we’ve ever had.

We played with this idea in the room, the odd idea that, with the ring — and Vanessa wrote this so well — sometimes you have to raise your hand. I remember reading that the first time, and I was like, “Oh my God. That’s the show.” That the ring chose Hal and he doesn’t think of the privilege of that, like, “Yeah, of course I deserve all this.” But John’s like, “There’s a difference between him and me. I know it’s not fair. That’s the way the world is.” A lot of parents have that conversation with their kids, and it’s a hard conversation to have.

Let me guess. Their idea of a "hook" was that John lose a parental figure too? I recall that it was established his mother was still alive in the last few years of the 2nd GL volume, though she was incomprehensibly dropped from the proceedings when the unbearable Action Comics Weekly feature went to press, and Katma Tui was repulsively slain, forcing Carol Ferris into a role she shouldn't have been in. They also seem to have built on a premise with the ring coming from the writings of Geoff Johns, who IIRC depicted the rings as choosing their hosts, instead of the original wearer, which for the GL Corps was the late Abin Sur. One more reason we could do without this TV mess.

Just before Lanterns, DC released Supergirl, based on your Woman of Tomorrow series. Did you work with [screenwriter] Ana Nogueira on that adaptation at all?

I was very purposefully hands-off on that project because, number one, I was in Lanterns. So that was my focus, supporting Chris to make Lanterns. And number two, I was so close to that material. I love that book that I wrote that I wanted to give them the freedom to create something. Because if I’m in there, I’m going to be like, “Let me tell you how it’s done.” And that wouldn’t have helped anyone be creative. I hate when people are doing that to me, so I wouldn’t want to do it to somebody else. Instead, I was like, “Beautiful people make beautiful work. Go forth and do your thing. I’ll be over here.”

Oh, some "beautiful" people they are alright. Also notice how King predictably remains oblivious to the catastrophe the Supergirl movie became, and won't ask whether his work was really any good to begin with. Is he also claiming there'd be no freedom to create something drawing from Golden/Silver/Bronze Age material, and only if it's based on his work, there is? That is just so dumb.

Nogueira’s working on a Wonder Woman movie as well. Have you gone hands-off with that, too?

For a while I had a job where I was a consultant — like a nerd consultant — so I worked on a lot of different sort of [DC] projects. But between Lanterns and Mister Miracle… I’m not involved in Wonder Woman except to say I hope it’s going to be utterly brilliant. I hope the people who are building it stay true to who that character is, because she’s just one of the greatest heroines ever created.

With the same screenwriter assigned, I doubt it. And I don't think King means what he says when he claims he hopes they'll remain true to what WW was built upon, seeing what a mess he made already in the comics proper, all for the sake of leftist agendas.

Even if Gunn hadn't been the executive producer of Lanterns, King's involvement is enough to avoid it, and the woke politics it builds on are so revolting, they make even the most questionable moments from O'Neil's writings look tame by comparison. It would be best if TV viewers would just change the channel, and read the earlier comics of GL from up to mid-1988 instead. And it's a shame many pseudo-historians won't admit much of GL's potential collapsed after that period.

Jewish entrepreneurs of the past helped build up toy merchandise as much as comics

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency wrote about how Jewish industrialists played as much a part in building up the toy industry as the comics industry:

But even if my family didn’t spend Saturdays in shul, kids’ television immersed me in an unspoken Jewish culture, as Michael Kimmel explains in his new book “Playmakers: The Jewish Entrepreneurs Who Created the Toy Industry in America.”

It’s a study of the mostly first-generation American Jews who led the toy industry in the 20th century, as well as the Jewish child psychologists, children’s book authors and comic book creators who, he asserts convincingly, invented the American idea of childhood.

“They created the childhood that they themselves never had,” Kimmel told me in a recent public conversation, part of “250 Years of American Jewish Life in America,” an online project of the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History and 70 Faces Media, JTA’s parent company.

The founders of iconic brands such as Ideal, Mattel, Marx, Hasbro, Kenner, Wham-O and Madame Alexander dolls shared roots in Yiddish-speaking Europe, and childhoods as the sons and daughters of immigrants.

“They were born in poverty on the Lower East Side, and you have all these stories of the scraps that they picked up off the street that they made into things,” said Kimmel. “They had these ideas that children were basically curious and creative, and that they should be nurtured.”

And commodified. Shut out of establishment industries and professions, Jewish entrepreneurs thrived in niches of their own making, capitalizing on and helping propel the consumer culture that exploded after World War I. German Jews ran some of the largest department stores, including Macy’s, Abraham & Straus and Gimbels, and Eastern European newcomers became the manufacturers, distributors and sales force that stocked their shelves with dolls, games, and gadgets.

The list of classic toys and Jews who developed them is almost comically long: Barbie (Ruth Handler), Lionel trains (Lionel Cowan), Mr. Potato Head (George Lerner), Yakity-Yak chattering teeth (Eddy Goldfarb), the pogo stick (George Hansburg), the Hula Hoop (Arthur Melin and Richard Knerr), G.I. Joe (Larry Reiner) and Play-Doh and the Easy-Bake Oven (the Steiner brothers: Albert, Philip and Joseph).

Since they cite Barbie toys, it's a shame a certain filmmaker named Greta Gerwig chose to humiliate them for the sake of a woke agenda attacking the "patriarchy". And it's also a shame the GI Joe toys have similarly suffered in live action filmmaking. I sadly suspect the history book in focus doesn't dwell on any of that, even though that could also provide something to learn from. The comics industry's also cited here, along with children's books, but there's one name in the latter part that's decidedly an embarrassment to include:

The Jewish entrepreneurs not only benefited from such views of childhood, but understood how to turn them into a business model. They were also pushed toward these new industries by a less uplifting force: antisemitism.

Kimmel said that many comic-book artists originally wanted to work in advertising, but advertising agencies in the 1930s and ’40s were notoriously hostile to Jews. Like toymaking, comic books became a Jewish industry. Underpaid Jewish artists and writers — including Jack Kirby, Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Will Eisner, Stan Lee and Lily Renée — dreamed up Superman, Betty Boop, the Spirit, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Spider-Man and The Thing, among dozens of others, often giving these superheroes and comic characters coded or actual Jewish backstories.

The same pattern appears in children’s literature. Kimmel counts 42 titles on the New York Public Library’s list of the 100 most important children’s books of the 20th century that were written by first-generation Jews, including Sydney Taylor, Maurice Sendak, Jack Ezra Keats, Jules Feiffer, Esphyr Slobodkina and Norman Juster.

While it's great the writer reminds us about the comics side of the Jewish industrialists, it's a shame he had to bring up a figure like Sendak, whose children's books, IMO, were tasteless, and worse was his politics. The article even cites the Fat Albert cartoon based on the disgraced Bill Cosby's comedy sketches, and even Lil' Abner cartoonist Al Capp, who regrettably turned out to be a pervert, and I honestly don't think it's such a good idea to provide such figures with citation, even if it doesn't make sense to erase them from history altogether. It only undermines the impact of the article, and if the book by Kimmel brings them up, that can be problematic. At least Capp is long gone, which makes it easier to read his work for anybody who cares.

Kimmel's book also makes space for a certain children's TV program on PBS:

Kimmel ends his book with “Sesame Street,” which he sees as a kind of culmination. The groundbreaking children’s show was developed by Joan Ganz Cooney, whose father was Jewish, with the assistance of Gerald Lesser, a developmental psychologist born to Jewish immigrant parents. The show was in some ways an antidote to the world of Saturday morning cartoons. It prepared pre-schoolers for success in kindergarten with the addictive, engaging style of commercial television. And instead of advertisements for toys, its “commercials” offered lessons in letters, shapes, counting, social skills and concepts such as “near” and “far.”

There was a time when Sesame Street, famous as it is for its use of the Muppets, was a great item for children to view and learn from. But that too has been largely ruined in the past decade by wokeness, which would make it another Jewish creation along with mainstream comics that's been destroyed for the sake of leftist agendas. And nobody in the modern Jewish-American community seems to have any issue with the creations of their past brethren being appropriated for the sake of repugnant political agendas and other ideologies.

Kimmel's book may be quite interesting from a historical perspective, but I have a sad feeling it may not build on objectivity from a modern one. And that's decidedly a problem. How are we to fix modern errors if nobody's willing to acknowledge what went wrong since the turn of the century, and nobody in the Jewish community cares what happened?

NPR wants to blame tariffs for hindering specialty store in Ohio

NPR wrote about Alter Ego Comics in Lima, Ohio that's reportedly had problems with tariffs the Trump administration set in place for Canada, as a result of all the trouble the latter's government caused:

But these days, the reality of tariffs has encroached into that escape that Bowker seeks to offer.

"It's become a challenge to try and remain stoic and focus on the four walls of my shop when it seems like the world is on fire," he says.

For nearly a year and a half, small business owners like Bowker have dealt with both the financial cost and uncertainty caused by tariffs.

And now, Bowker is also dealing with how to seek tariff refunds after some of the import taxes he paid were struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year – and facing the prospect that an escalating trade war with Canada could soon drag him into another tariff storm.

"It unfortunately could be a major issue to an industry that has really been firing on almost all cylinders for the last couple of years," Bowker said.

It's an illustration of how tariff walls around countries continue to put pressure on main street American businesses more than a year after President Trump first unveiled them in a White House ceremony.

Has the comics medium really been on "all cylinders" in the past few years? Not via the majors, that's for sure. And if regular bookstores know how to handle these things, I don't understand how managers of specialty stores don't. Also, look what the store in focus is relying upon:

For Bowker, those initial "Liberation Day" tariffs meant paying more for the action figures that drive about 70% of his revenue. Think highly detailed foot-tall statues of Wolverine or Spider-Man made in China. At one point, Chinese goods were tariffed at 145%, though they've since fluctuated lower.

Since "Liberation Day," Bowker has paid his supplier more than $16,000 in tariffs. For a while he passed some of that along to his customers as a 3% tariff fee. Recently though, Bowker decided to get rid of the fee and just eat that extra cost himself because it was costing him business.

"The reality is our action figure business was down 50% last year," Bowker said. "And I have a feeling a lot of that had to do with tariffs."

Tariffs or none, I find it annoying how statues are emphasized here, when the story merit of the original comics are what should matter. Yet it's excruciatingly obvious NPR has no interest in such challenging issues. Wow, this is what the specialty store's business depends upon by and large? That's got to be telling, right down to how the action figures and statues are made in a communist-run country.

Today there are still other tariffs raising the cost of his action figures. And there's another possible tariff threat down the line – the growing trade war between the U.S. and Canada. Comics – including the ones Bowker sells – are primarily imported from Canada.

They are not included in this round of tariffs, but that could change if the trade war keeps escalating.

But nobody argues that perhaps comics should see more printing in the USA proper, huh? Canada isn't doing a favor by refusing to cooperate with Trump on business and trade issues, and he's encouraging Canadian businesses to move their operations to the USA. Maybe that's just what they should do, if Trump's willing to offer special benefits and bonuses. But that's not a concern to NPR, in all their biases.

At least Bowker is seeing a break from the tariff storm. Despite all these headwinds, Bowker says business this year is up. There's a comic book renaissance right now boosting his sales, driven by popular titles like Absolute Batman.

But while many customers are still buying, others are tightening their budget because of rising prices, caused in part by tariffs.

And no discussion of the $5-plus cover prices for the now outmoded pamphlets, right? I wonder how that doesn't matter or concern? It looks like NPR exploited this whole topic just for the sake of a pathetic attack on Trump's tax policies, and naturally, they have no interest in how DC's Absolute line builds on some bad political metaphors as well. So of course, one can only wonder if NPR gave a citation to Absolute Batman based on its political components. Here, they had a chance to shed some light on various independent titles, and what makes them click or not, and instead, we have to hear cliche upon cliche about Absolute Batman, and action figures that're no replacement for the actual comics themselves. This whole report is therefore a joke, and asks no questions helpful to USA business at all. It definitely doesn't offer any valid alternatives for comics.

Swiss comic for teaching students about AI

Geneva Solutions announced a special comic that's for teaching about AI, but also about wider cooperation:

A 48-page comic book, titled Critical Code, aims to educate students about the importance of multilateral cooperation. It has been distributed in Geneva’s secondary schools and across 15 other Swiss cantons.

Since 2023, international Geneva has faced challenging years, marked by thousands of job cuts across UN agencies, the Palais des Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and scores of NGOs, as well as relocations of key operations. The impact has been profound, forcing Geneva to rethink its future.

In response, the Foundation for Geneva – celebrating its 50th anniversary this year – has championed the creation of a comic book exploring Geneva’s international ecosystem. The work, published in French, German, Italian and English, is called Critical Code.

[...] The 48-page comic has already been distributed by the Department of Public Education to secondary school classes in Geneva and a dozen other cantons. Its goal is to “challenge young people to think about the individual and global implications of AI” while also highlighting the importance of international cooperation, much of which takes place in Geneva. As a key pillar of Swiss foreign policy, the comic also aims to showcase the often-overlooked strengths of international Geneva to the rest of the Swiss population.

Well I hope they're not intent on trying to set up another political outfit to substitute for movements like the UN, because they have been a bad lot for years, and so has the Red Cross. If the comics project is meant to provide a better idea for people, like encouraging them to do technological research, that's what could make it palatable. But they need to stop acting like the UN is virtually everything, when it's not. And if they think AI isn't the best example in technology, maybe they should just say so.

New horror comic builds on political metaphors

The Daily Dead interviewed cartoonist Matt Bors, who's now producing a comic titled "The Toxic Avenger vs. the Noxious Offender", the latter which is the artist's creation, and this particular story contains quite an eyebrow-raising political allusion and metaphor:

Bringing The Noxious Offender into the comic book world is a huge deal for fans of the franchise. What made now the perfect time to bring him in to face Toxie?

Matt Bors: Doing the dark universe counterpart of a hero in comic books is almost a right of passage. After establishing the universe we are in and some new adventures like Toxie Goes to Washington, I wanted to circle back to something more character focused and there’s nothing more character focused than yourself, but as an asshole. Our Noxie is an incel school shooter—not typically hilarious stuff. We want to make him a real menace, an obscenely violent twisted version of our character who was broken long before he was melted by toxic waste. We are doing something different with Noxie and as the story goes on, readers will see how it fits within long-running plots we have had going since these comics launched.

This is sick, because it builds on stereotypes that have probably been common for years, that "nerds" are wolves in sheep's clothing, and somehow, they're all "right-wing" adherents. And if he's playing it for laughs, that only makes it all the more chillingly offensive. There've been a horrifying number of school shootings in real life in more than a quarter century since Columbine in 1999, and this is what the market is pushing? Repulsive.

For this mini-series, what real-world struggles did you want to tackle in this fantastical setting?

Matt Bors: Toxie and Yvonne are going to have a mutant baby, despite the risks of a toxic waste-based pregnancy, as Noxie arrives and violently takes over his life. As I mentioned, our Noxie is a school shooter—that’s how he dealt with his bullies in his universe and that has everything to do with his own upbringing. So we are dealing with some pretty heavy themes and we are leavening that with a lot of humor, action, and body horror. But we’re not being flip about it all either. As with my series Justice Warriors, I like to mix the highbrow and lowbrow. Real world issues in a weird mutant comic. The serious and the stupid can coexist. This is the promise of comic books.

Can you talk about your approach to mixing humor, ooze, and serious topics in the world of The Toxic Avenger?

Matt Bors: I come from the world of political cartooning, so I like punchy writing and talking about everything that is fucked up in our world—it’s a long list and we’re adding to it every day. I’m also a longtime fan of genre fiction—mutants and gore, please, but make it substantive. Make it about something. I don’t abide by the idea that something is more serious or literary by shedding jokes and genre and the more engaging elements of fiction, particularly movies and comics. These are vehicles for discussing and processing our world, but that doesn’t mean things have to be dour, doomer, or—worse—boring. To hell with that.

One has to wonder how a story about a character who's a school shooter is something to be impressed by, mainly because, if the antagonist (the word "protagonist" would be very inappropriate here) winds up costing the lives of innocents, then what exactly makes this a suitable tale? And even if the "star" takes on bullies, does that make it okay to celebrate gore galore and treat it all as humor? Nope. All that does is take away the seriousness of the issues involved. This whole comic is nothing more than another thing that's "f***ed up in our world".

What has your experience been with long-time fans of the franchise who are getting all-new adventures through your stories?

Matt Bors: I hear from Troma and Troma fans all the time and everyone seems to love it and be very supportive. Lloyd Kaufman and the fine people in the Troma offices are in touch regularly and give us their blessings. There wasn’t a lot done with the character for a long time and now we have a long-running comic book series, new movie, and a video game on the way. And this isn’t garbage pumped out for fan service—it’s new takes on the original material that fans can appreciate while bringing in new readers. I don’t think you have to have grown up on the movie to enjoy this comic book. You just have to enjoy weird, gory heroes.

There is nothing "heroic" in any of this propaganda, and it only gives the horror genre a bad name by playing the story for cheap sensationalism. What exact "fan service" is to be in this anyway? Only for corrupt mindsets, that's what. And all from somebody who's worked in political cartoons. This is just another item that ruins the whole medium and art form. When will some people wake up and understand that?

Frank Miller tells more to the Wash. Post

One of Miller's interviewers said in one of the recent articles about him that he's got no intention of slowing down with his career, even as he's reaching 70, and as the following interview from the Washington Post makes clear, he's not done with his current promotional tour yet:

The pages of a Frank Miller work are filled with crooked cops, murderers, desperate men and unhinged dark knights. You might expect the creator behind all that darkness to be a bit gloomy himself. Maybe he would be a recluse, like his hero, “Calvin and Hobbes” creator Bill Watterson.

As it turns out, Miller seems to like people. I watched him sign hundreds of autographs at the Library of Congress’s National Book Festival in D.C. on Saturday. He was gentle, chatty and generous with his time despite the crowd overflowing past its designated space inside the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.

Unfortunately, Miller doesn't seem to like conservatives, and one in particular by the name of Donald Trump. You could reasonably wonder if any attendants are right-wing themselves, and if they let know this, what does Miller think of them?

Miller helped redefine the modern superhero with Daredevil and Batman before creating celebrated original works such as “Sin City” and “300.” Pop milestones like “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” or Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies may not exist without Frank Miller.

His book isn’t a conventional autobiography but a collection of 16 lessons Miller learned while becoming one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Those lessons include knowing your ending, getting your hero into trouble fast and pushing against whatever it is that’s keeping you from what you want to make.

The lessons also include making mistakes: Miller would sketch out many drawings for months before he finally made something that pleased the old master.

But those mistakes don't include apologizing for writing Holy Terror 7 years after its publishing, or blatant attacks on right-wingers, do they? If not, what's his point about trying to stand your ground on the subject of those who'd try to prevent you from developing what you want to make?

“It’s created new opportunities for me to speak more freely to new people who are coming up,” Miller said. “One of the real joys is for me to be looking at drawings and hearing story ideas that people are working on themselves, and to give them some advice on where to go with it.”

I wonder what he'd say to known conservatives? Or anybody who wants to tackle challenging issues? Again, that's not something dwelled upon here.

Miller writes about how his own lessons come from everywhere. He writes lovingly about Adams and his other mentor, Will Eisner, creator of “The Spirit,” but he reaches just as readily toward painters such as Francisco de Goya, Japanese manga writers like Kazuo Koike and music.

If memory serves, he wasn't so loving in his take on Eisner when he produced the American Genius documentary. After "cementing" a putdown in a recording, why now is he suddenly and seemingly talking positively about Eisner again? There was even another certain leftist who came from Israel working in video games at the convention Miller attended:

Onstage, I relayed a question to Miller from Neil Druckmann, co-creator of “The Last of Us” game series and HBO adaptation, who said his story wouldn’t exist without “Sin City.” He wanted to know how Miller selects collaborators, particularly when someone is adapting his work. How does he make sure they won’t abandon the spirit of his stories?

“Friendships,” Miller said. “Most of them come from getting to know somebody … and getting a kernel of an idea that I know would be something both of us could feed each other on.”

Wonder what that left-wing Israeli expatriate was doing there, recalling Druckmann exploited the Last of Us sequel for political propaganda? And to think, that he drew "inspiration" from a series of GNs like Miller's. It makes me think of how, not only does nobody like them seem to consider Superman inspirational material, they don't consider the Fantastic Four inspiration either. Miller may have done some illustrations for at least one story in both of the above, but as the bulk of his work since makes clear, he has a darkness problem, and so do some of the folks who say they're inspired by his work from the 1990s.

In the memoir, he describes learning to respect film and its differences from comics. His early comics success led to work as a Hollywood screenwriter. While he appreciated the medium, he would later write his biggest original book, “Sin City,” as a black-and-white novel, in the hope that it was unadaptable to film. He didn’t want it better known as a movie.

And yet, it was adapted in the mid-2000s, though the sequel was a failure, and it doesn't seem to have been revisited on celluloid since. I do think there's only so much from even standard literature that shouldn't have to be known far more cinematically, so some could wonder if Miller sadly failed to resist the tug of Hollywood influence. And then, a certain matter of defeatism comes up in the discussion again:

Before Miller’s memoir, his comics provided the clearest insight into his mind, but his book makes those thoughts explicit, including his regrets. He looks back on “Holy Terror,” a much-criticized story written out of Miller’s anger after the 9/11 attacks. He now describes it as a rant. Would he ever write another such story?

“I hope I’m never inspired to do so again,” he writes.

Miller urges readers to push walls, especially the ones he helped build. He writes that it drives him “crazy” to see that his version of Batman is now enshrined as foundational.

Once again, Miller, in a way, continues talking out of both sides of his mouth - he urges wall-pushing, but he doesn't want to push it any longer with a GN that took on a challenging issue. But what's this, does he really think it's a shame DKR's vision wound up practically ruining the general take on Bruce Wayne in comics proper? Well he sure hasn't done enough to complain about it. Probably because, as I've guessed before, he doesn't seem to care much about most other takes on Batman save for his own. And to date, I can't even recall him ever chatting about Denny O'Neil and Steve Englehart's writings.

“For one thing, the title ‘Dark Knight’ started appearing in all kinds of comic books,” Miller said in our interview. “Beyond that, he became the unpleasant superhero for a long time. I essentially felt that I was in the business of knocking down walls, and I felt like people had used my work to construct new ones.”

Interesting he should tell this, because again, by the turn of the century, DC editors were practically forcing such a personality upon the Masked Manhunter, and only now, long after Batman's potential was ruined along with countless other mainstream creations, does he have the audacity to tell us this? It's too little, too late.

One more thing I thought of regarding Miller's early writings in Daredevil is the negative take he may have had on the Punisher, and the contrasting take he had when he drew an early Wolverine miniseries co-written with Chris Claremont in 1982. Which would make Miller another scribe with a bewildering double-standard on vigilante-style characters who kill, and it's something else he may not have addressed so far, and probably never will. For now, it's a shame that Miller continues to give signs he sticks with a defeatist position, and some could wonder if his recent positive comments on a movie or two drawing from his writings is another sign of the same. And his continued veering towards the darkness, save for certain challenging issues, is another problem he's got that makes much of his resume since the 1990s so unappealing.

Cartoon voice actor Peter Cullen dies at 85

Quad City Times reports the animation voice actor Peter Cullen, most notable for playing the voice of Optimus Prime in the original 1984-87 Transformers series, died at 85 years of age:

Peter Cullen, who gave Optimus Prime his iconic voice in the "Transformers" franchise, has died. He was 85.

Cullen died at his Los Angeles home on Wednesday, his agent, Kevin Motley, confirmed to USA Today.

"Peter Cullen passed away peacefully, surrounded by his loving family – and held in the hearts of his many friends and countless fans worldwide," his family said in a statement. A cause of death has not yet been shared publicly.

Cullen voiced Optimus Prime, leader of the Autobots, in "Transformers," starting with the original animated series in the 1980s and continuing all the way into the modern live-action movies. He brought the character to the big screen in "The Transformers: The Movie," which is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. The 1986 film famously devastated fans by killing off Optimus Prime, though the character later returned. [...]

In a 2011 interview with USA Today, Cullen revealed how he was inspired by his brother, a former captain in the Marine Corps, when he first auditioned for the role. "One morning when I was on my way to the audition, he asked me where I was going and I told him 'I'm about to audition for a hero and it’s a truck,'" Cullen recalled. "He laughed, and I laughed, too, because I had no idea what I was getting into. He said, 'Peter, don't be a Hollywood hero. Don't be one of those loudmouths yelling and screaming and pretending. Be a real hero and you can be strong enough to be gentle and understanding.' It was the character of a Marine who was talking. His timbre is very similar to mine to begin with, so it was easy to impersonate him, and the tone he gave me to set the audition was perfect." [...]

"I love characters who do good or make people feel good," he said.

I think his inspirations were great. Of course, it's still a shame Hasbro had to spend millions of dollars on a whole cartoon movie in 1986 to make the point of jettisoning Optimus from their toy line, along with several other models, when here, they could've just canceled the models quietly and minimized the damage. They did the right thing to reverse the demise of Optimus, but I can't remember if they ever did the same with Wheeljack and Ironhide, in example.

That said, Cullen had an impressive career in cartoon voice acting, and he'll be missed.

A father-son partnership develops stories for inspiration to the Black community

The Philadelphia Tribune wrote about a father and son who've produced their own independent comics to serve as inspiration for the Black community:

Inspired by a collective classroom project, Leo J. Neal, then age 7, created a superhero comic book. Now, with the help of his father, Christopher B. Neal, the two have collaborated on “The Amazing Adventures of Captain Cold” where they aim to tell stories that uplift the Black community.

I hope DC doesn't intend to cause even an iota of trouble for them just because they're using a character name similar to that of a notable supercrook from the Flash. What I certainly do know is that in the past decade, there were at least a few cases where Marvel and DC tried to do stuff like trademarking the very word "superhero" to limit competition, and that was wrong. If we're past that issue, that's a good thing. They probably did it partly out of their failure to admit they were ruining their own products. Thankfully, the trademark was cancelled about 2 years ago by the US trademark board.

For the most part, Chris, 42, said he lets his son, now 9, bring his imagination to the books.

“I’ve been intentional about him (Leo) moving forward and for him to be a Black voice in this space,” said Chris. “His characters are Black characters that are his idea. He was intentional about that, because representation matters. I wanted to lean into his interests.”

Yes, it matters, but it shouldn't come at the expense of established white characters, as was the case at both DC and Marvel in the past 2 decades, all for wokeness that was devoid of entertainment value. Here, the considerable difference is that the guys producing these indie comics are creating their own protagonists, and not forcing them into the costumes of established mainstream characters artificially. That's why creator-owned comics like these have more potential today. Now, if only somebody would consider why specific nationalities and their cultures matter too.

Leo said he enjoys writing the comic book. “It’s not that hard with my assistant (his father),” he said.

The son won a 2026 Fan Award for Best Work for “The Amazing Adventures of Captain Cold.” According to Chris it showed Leo how much people loved his book.

“Manifesting his ideas and see how it makes sense,” explained Chris. “Our hope is to lean more into community service, activism, awareness. Where we see this going is him leaning into the ideas that he has.”

The dad explained that their journey and the stories they tell show that Black people can be owners of different mediums and portray who they are and what they represent. In addition, the dad said he has learned from and been inspired by his son’s creativity and passion.

Okay, that fan award hopefully makes clear DC's staff know better than to cause any trouble for them, which would be pretty rich after DC methodically destroyed their own quality over the past quarter century and more, all for the sake of political agendas and other repellent directions. I appreciate that a youngster's able to prove he's got potential for storytelling, and maybe when he's several years older, he'll find fortune the way some veteran writers like Marv Wolfman and the late Len Wein did when they were in their late teens. And there is an important idea to be found in how Black citizens can own businesses that include mediums.

Interestingly enough, this article also tells that:

When they’re not writing or creating, the father and son volunteer at Whosoever Gospel Mission, a Christian nonprofit on Chelten Avenue and other organizations. They’ve also started a garden and play tennis.

Religious adherence of this sort is something the mainstream's practically been blacklisting, and quite possibly erasing altogether from storytelling over past decades, unless it's Islam that's the focus. I think it's good the father-son duo are contributing to Judeo-Christianity in a time when leftists have gone out of their way to belittle it for the sake of degrading agendas. If faith is also an inspiration in their writings, that's another plus. As is playing sports like tennis. So good luck to them in developing more comics stories. The creator-owned industry could sure use more to help build it up.

Hair color style drawing from the comics

New Beauty tells of a hair stylist/colorist who took some inspiration from the dark haired color certain superheroes are known for:

Call it Blue-Black, “comic-book color” or the “Superman shade”—a rich, jewel-toned black with a cool, glossy blue undertone, emerging as one of the must-haves this fall in Los Angeles, according to celebrity colorist Chad Kenyon, who is fielding the fever.

“I thought about Superman and Wonder Woman’s comic book hair color and made them more editorial,” says Kenyon of his unexpected source of creativity.

Kenyon began developing the look in 2025 and says it has since moved from concept to a look he’s asked to create across every type of client. “I'm doing it for celebrities such as Taylor Ortega, from her series with Dan Levy streaming now on Netflix, as well as content creators and civilians alike.”

The only thing that's a shame here is the citation of figures working on a channel as awful as Netflix happens to be. But wow, what potential there could be in drawing inspiration from hair colors, and regarding the color blue, I think I've sometimes noticed it somehow turning up on characters whose hair is black, perhaps an oddity in how some colorists accidentally make mistakes with certain colors in past decades. Batman's certainly been drawn at times with the color blue on his costume in past decades, though that was bound to be more deliberate. But it was okay, and a welcome contrast to the black shade some artists and writers in later years thought was such a big deal, in all their obsession with the darkness.

Anyway, I'll wish good luck to the stylist in his new goal of developing hairstyles and colors inspired by comicdom. It could have potential, though it's still no substitute for quality in the comics storytelling itself.